Thursday, November 17, 2016

Before the election, ABC News election coverage was dominated by negative stories about Donald Trump. They had stories about Hillary Clinton as well, but it often took serious digging to find one that was negative.

Now that the election is over and Donald Trump is the President-elect, the ABC News election section is dominated by stories about Clinton and the Democratic party with reactions from Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama.

Buried beneath these stories more negative headlines regarding the Trump Campaign and family. One headline that read "Big Questions from Donald Trump's 1st Week as President-Elect"was a story that started by praising Trump for being relatively laid back since announced the winner of the 2016 election. All paragraphs following the lead however, deeply fact check and compare the things he has said since elected compared to what he has said in the past.

Another article highlights the reactions of other World Leaders. It starts with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, saying he expects to be an ally with Trump, however, they follow it up with a quote from him during the election questioning Trumps credibility. Another was Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte who said Trump's victory was well deserved. ABC News followed it up with several cases in which Duterte was not good to Obama or the United States, in an effort to discredit his praise of Trump.

The other article about Trump is about his Son-In-Law hasn't applied for a role in Trump's administration yet or for security clearance. In the middle of the article, it include links back to its other negative articles about him.

Finally at the bottom of its page, ABC News highlights again Trump's stances on different issues. I like that chose to get back to the things that are often lost during election media coverage. However, I think the reason's it posted his stances was to remind its readers of some of his crazy stances.

Whether or not ABC News or the rest of the country is happy about the result, Trump was the winner of the current system in the United States. It seems disrespectful to me for the media to continue to be biased against the President-elect. There are several side stories ABC had on its webpage about reactions from citizens that feel scared or angry, however there have to be citizens out there who are happy and relieved, because he had enough votes to win.

The 2016 election was the first of hopefully many that I’ll
cover as a reporter. In 2012, I was old enough to vote and understand the
process, but I wasn’t looking at it through the lens of a journalist. I first
began dipping my toes in presidential election coverage over the summer during
the Republican National Convention. Though I wasn’t in Cleveland, I still
played a role remotely in the newsroom in Youngstown. I monitored the special
RNC scanner feed, listening for protests, arrests, etc. I also wrote stories
that localized the RNC. However, it wasn’t until taking our election coverage
class that I really immersed myself in the practice. I had a few main takeaways
from the class to carry with me into future elections.

Local Commitment

The first is the importance of local election coverage. This
means not only taking national issues and finding local angles, but also going
in depth in community ballot issues, state races and local races.

I spent the
first part of the semester analyzing election coverage at several stations in
Ohio, and I concluded that the best coverage came from stations that focused on
their own backyard rather than regurgitating wire stories. It serves hometown
audiences no good to produce the same stories they could find in the national
news.

This concept was further emphasized when we researched and covered local
election issues for WOUB as part of this class. We learned the importance of
local news outlet coverage of such issues when we put it to practice.

For
example, of all the people I spoke to in the city of Logan in Hocking County,
few to none were aware of the decriminalization act on their ballot. And even
if they knew of the ordinance, it was all legal talk and not easily
understandable for the average citizen. That’s where journalists can help.

We
were able to learn the issue and explain it conversationally for the voters to
understand. Without our coverage, they likely wouldn’t have had much
information on the ordinance, and if they did, it’s even less likely it was
balanced.

Another approach to local coverage is taking national stories
regarding the presidential race and finding a way to apply them to local
interests. For example, one station’s coverage I examined took Donald Trump’s
social media posts about the station’s city and turned it into a story. Other
avenues could include analyzing claims candidates make and seeing how they
could impact communities at a local level, or by talking to residents to learn
their opinions on the election.

National Scope

On the national level, this election was a complete mess for
several reasons. Firstly, there’s the issue of the polls. Nearly every poll
projected Hillary Clinton to be the next president. Even I believed it based
off what I was learning in my research methods class.

We looked at the
predictions from statistics experts who took several polls to create a better
sampling distribution in order create a more generalizable prediction. However,
Donald Trump was elected president. This can be explained by what was most
likely a systematic error from the pollsters- so many new voters turned out
this election and weren’t considered in the initial polls to account for
sampling error.

No matter the explanation, it won’t make up for the loss of
public trust. Those not in academia or the news media see the polling mistakes
as the fault of individual news organizations like CNN and the New York Times. This
leaves the future credibility of the polls at question, as well as the public
perception of news outlets.

Also tarnishing the reputation of news media was
president-elect, Donald Trump. He convinced many of his supporters to distrust
the media and believe in a conspiracy that news outlets had a left-leaning
agenda.

Though content analyses prove that the coverage of Trump received more
coverage than Clinton, he was still able to convince people otherwise.

TOM STIGLICH/CREATORS SYNDICATE

Even the New York Times issued somewhat of an apology to its readers for straying away
from its core journalistic values during the election season.

Despite his claims and distaste for the media, Trump managed to attract national spotlight without spending much on advertising. He knew how to catch the attention of the same media he scrutinized, and pulled off a win no one saw coming.The Future
Moving forward, journalists will need to regain their credibility. This doesn't mean their credibility come four years from now during the next election, but their credibility starting last week. Numerous studies show the decline in Americans' trust in their news sources, even before the election. So now, more than ever, journalists need to live by ethics codes and report the truth.

With Donald Trump as president, the job will be even harder. He continues to almost slander the news media. I'm also fearful of the lack of coverage he will allow in the White House. The pressure is on journalists to hold their ground and stand up for the integrity of journalism these next four years.

It's safe to say that the nation (and the world) were glued to the media last Tuesday as Donald J. Trump swept up state after state after state. While many didn't think Trump had the win even as late as Tuesday afternoon, it didn't stop citizens and journalists alike from wondering, "Where did we go wrong?"

Now, over a week after the election, president-elect Donald Trump is stealing all the headlines but the question above is one that major networks and publications all across the country are still working to answer.Fake Headlines - Hook, Line, and Sinker

If you saw a headline on your Facebook timeline reading something along the lines of, "Pope Francis Shocks the World, Endorses Donald Trump for President" and liked, shared, or commented on how good or bad it was that the Pope of all people was making endorsements, you've been fooled.

Even reputable groups can't decipher real v. fake news, meaning they are passing on false information to all of their followers and friends. Credit: Afghanistan And Israel People Friendship Association Facebook page.

CBS News probed into Buzzfeed's study of click bait articles. Apparently, during September, October, and November of 2016, Facebook users interacted with the top 20 fake election-related articles more than 8.7 million times. This number is shocking, however, the number of times users interacted with the top 20 stories from real publications is far more surprising - fewer than 7.4 million times. From Trump calling the media "scum" to "crooked" to the "lowest form of life", the media as a whole is getting a lot of bad publicity. President Obama understands the power of social media. Many will argue that it was the sole reason he clinched his 2012 win.

"As long as it's on Facebook and people can see it, as long as it's on social media, people start believing it. And it creates this dust cloud of nonsense," the president said.

Most recently, CBS says Zuckerberg acknowledged that Facebook is looking for ways to flag fake news.

Ultimately, traditional networks like CBS will be caught in the bind if the internet doesn't figure out how to filter out false headlines. Many say they truth will prevail but when even the president-elect says things that he later admits are false, it's too late. The damage has been done and it's difficult to reverse. Similarly, when people read fake news without even knowing it's false, the damage could be permanent.

Jackie McCreajm059212@ohio.eduThe Aftermath
Regardless of how you feel about the election, it was certainly one that will go down in history. With a nation divided, we are far from the coverage cooling down anytime soon. The most exciting coverage to watch was, of course, election night. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, weighed in when the results became clear and she held absolutely nothing back. Though MSNBC is an incredibly liberal network, I was still a bit surprised about how candidly she spoke.

Courtesy of youtube.com

I do acknowledge that the results of the election were a major upset for Clinton supporters, but I also think there needs to be some line drawn on reporting. It seems almost unethical to be so biased in one way, even if you do host an opinionated TV segment. I personally believe her commentary seemed like more of an emotional response than a professional one. In fact, YouTube videos of the clip refer to it as the "Maddow Meltdown."

Decision 2016
Because of the major Republican wins during this election period, MSNBC has spent quite some time covering the party, something that is sort of unusual for them. Most articles on the homepage are regarding Trump's foreign policy plan, his plan for his first 100 days and how he is handling the transition into President Elect. As I have observed this website over the past couple months, it is rare to see an article that is not negatively slanted toward Donald Trump. However, every network is beginning to come to terms with the election results and focusing more on reporting than endorsing a particular candidate, which is refreshing.

Of course, there is also coverage on the Democratic party and how they will repair the break that they experienced in the most recent election. Because many were expecting major losses on the Republican side, repairing the party was not on the mind of many Democratic leaders. There are several articles and videos readily found that detail the next step for Democrats.

MSNBC's website has done some interesting reorganization. They have created tabs to follow each candidate after the big election. Each tab encases the major stories following President Elect Trump and Former Secretary Clinton. These tabs are closely following the every move of both person and the ins and outs of their respective parties.

America Up in Arms
It's no secret that this election has created a severe dichotomy in our nation. Because of this there have been nationwide protests, some of which have turned violent. In my opinion, this is a topic that needs to be more heavily covered. There are some stories on MSNBC about the protests, but they are buried among other things. Despite the importance of covering both parties, I think it may be more important to acknowledge this divide and strategize on how to repair it. Though protesting the next president won't do much of anything, it is an opportunity for politicians to reach across the aisle and resolve some of the things these people are feeling. It is quite surprising that there are not a lot of articles about that.

Courtesy of MSNBC.com

I found it odd that I had to search for articles regarding said riots instead of seeing them on the front page. Somehow I think those stories are more important than a story about Trump having dinner with his family.

Regardless, I hope that MSNBC will continue to cover what matters. Though there will always be a slant on their coverage, I hope that they continue to respect the results of the election and keep audiences up to date on what truly matters.

The New York Times and Trump have a history of not seeing eye to eye. From the beginning when Trump announced he was running for president, he was treated like a joke and a celebrity with no chance of becoming the next leader of the free world. Hence the irony in the cartoon above that was posted on the Times website November 9, 2016 with the caption "Surprise."

The New York Times, a publication often criticized for its liberal-bias, was dumbfounded and mystified Trump won. According to them and all the polls - it seemed clear that Hillary Clinton would be our next president. I mean, after all, who are all these Trump supporters?

The New York Times' Publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and Executive Editor, Dean Banquet, attempt to reassure their readers that they report with "honesty, without fear or favor."

The letter asks, "Did Donald Trump's sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?"

But Trump is not letting the Times get away with anything. He has no problem calling them out on Twitterif and when he disagrees with what they are reporting - similar to how he approached the media during his campaign.

Trump tags the New York Times Twitter handle in his tweets where he bashes the publication as "dishonest and BAD." He claims the Times is loosing subscribers because of their "very poor and highly inaccurate coverage."

Trump even mocks the letter claiming it was an apology for "BAD coverage of me. I wonder if it will change - doubt it?"

The Times combatted Trump on Twitter, however, tweeting back at him that the fact was they are not loosing subscribers, they are actually gaining new ones.

Source: Twitter

Only time will tell what the state of America holds with president-elect Trump in office, but one thing we can know for certain is that the battle between news outlets like the New York Times and Trump is far from over, and coverage regarding Trump's presidency is no where near finished.

The New York Times sent out the letter to reaffirm their values and fundamental mission to provide good journalism and fair reporting. Let's give them a chance to prove they can do that. Likewise, let's give president-elect Donald J. Trump the chance to show us what it means to "Make America Great Again!"

Many in the media were caught by surprise when Donald Trump forged a clear path to victory last week. Indeed, coverage from the New York Times has reflected shock but continues to center on disarray, continuing a trend that raised questions about the media's bias against the Trump campaign throughout the primary and general election season.

Subtle wordings provide curious insights to the nature of coverage, such as the exclusion of Trump's name from headlines that instead used the term, "the president-elect." Yet, for many NPR articles, which this blog is devoted to dissect, headline bias does not pervade.

None of those headlines have a distinctly negative sway, despite the final headline's mention of a potentially tumultuous transition. Although the headline describes "turmoil," the other words included are bland and non-suggestive of a conclusion. The use of the word "color" specifically stands out in contrast to the New York Times' more accusatory headline; "Firings and Discord Put Trump Transition Team in a State of Disarray." Indeed, the lede of the New York Times' news report accepted the conclusion that Trump's transition was in dire straits:

President-elect Donald J. Trump's transition was in disarray on Tuesday, marked by firings, infighting and revelations that American allies were blindly dialing in to Trump Tower to try to reach the soon-to-be-leader of the free world.

Not only did the reporters conclude that Trump's team was in chaos, their use of harsh words such as "infighting" and "blindly" conjure an image of commotion in contrast to NPR's more cautious inclusion of the word "reports."

Donald Trump's Twitter page was streaming with responsesto New York Times coverage of his transition team.

However, NPR's content does not lack imagery and indeed employs words just as harsh as those used by the New York Times in the first paragraph of its article reporting on the transition team:

"President-elect Donald Trump's first week after pulling off an upset victory has had plenty of missteps. The rocky start to his transition planning that one source described to CNN as a "knife fight" has done little to assure his critics and skeptical Republicans that he'll have a smooth ascension to the Oval Office surrounded by qualified advisers. Trump denies that the transition is rocky."

By noting in the first paragraph that Trump denies accusations of a turbulent transition, NPR does something the New York Times does not. But phrases such as "has had" and "the rocky start" seem to confirm a perspective that turmoil has indeed taken place.

Due to the plethora of insider reports alleging that Trump's transition team has met obstacles in its first week of preparation, do journalists have the right to cover allegations in a confirming tone? What constitutes bias in an age when accusations of bias have continued to fly in the form of tweets from a president-to-be?

In response to the New York Times article, Trump turned to his Twitter podium and addressed his crowd of supporters to rebuke the article's claims. He did not respond to coverage from NPR. Trump's accusations against the New York Times continue a trend of rebutting their reporting that began at the start of his political campaign.

The relationship between the president-elect and the country's leading newspaper represents the significant strain and skepticism he has bred of "the media" in general. When Trump begins his four years in the presidency, the New York Times and NPR will continue to cover him as the country's primary leader, and the angles and tones each outlet employs in its coverage will set a base for an interesting case study of media bias that will put journalistic integrity to a test.

The BBC, along with many Europeans across the Atlantic, is reeling from the shock of Trump's victory. The confusion is almost palpable going through this week's top stories. As Trump has begun to announce his cabinet resources have begun to slowly drift from the election, but for the BBC how Trump actually won the election is still the focus.

Struggling this election to understand the alt-right behind Trump, just as they did during Brexit, the BBC and media in general have to take a share of the credit for this election. In March of this year Trump had already earned $2 billion worth of free coverage, and regardless of what your opinion of his platform, it allowed him the ability to focus resources elsewhere and better mobilize his voters.

Is polling to blame?

Donald Trump stunned much of the world with his narrow win.Photo courtesy of the Independent.

Across the aisle many people are questioning the validity of modern polling methods. The traditional cold call to homes across the country are being foiled by their samples not answering the phone. Not only that more and more americans are ditching traditional landlines, especially in younger demographics. This complicates the polling process even further, as calls to the home become more intrusive.

Furthermore I would posit that the polls weren't that far off. In fact despite many thinking there would be a high voter turnout, the US had continued with its disheartening low voter turnout. Not only that, but Clinton actually won the popular vote. While we may never know if she would have won with more people voting, it's hard to argue the polls were completely with that in mind.

Foreign perspective

The BBC has an interesting job to tackle covering American elections. While the two countries are fairly similar, the British simply do not understand the Electoral College. Their coverage throughout this election has been focused on helping their primary audience understand how and why Americans elect the president the way they do. Their story explaining the basic what the Electoral College is and what it does has been a pinned story to the election page.

Another focus from the start of the general election has been attempting to clearly figure out why people followed Trump and despised Clinton. The BBC tried to remain neutral, but it was clear to see by the amount of negative coverage that Trump received, and continues to receive, largely negative coverage. Trump stories not only take some of the negative aspects of his domestic opposition, but compounds it with that in Western Europe.

This shows that the BBC didn't learn the lesson much of the media failed to learn this year. Free coverage can help expose a candidate better a strong platform. The merits of Trump's ideas aside, the amount of coverage he got for his vitriolic rhetoric definitely helped him reach a larger audience.

Trump understands TV better than those on TV understood him. He understood the nature of American elections in the modern age, he knew he had to keep in the spotlight and did it. In the future the BBC and others like it need to be careful on how they handle media savvy candidates like Trump.

The 2016 Election cycle was a roller coaster no one could have predicted. As expected, social media was a center point of both campaigns. According to Bloomberg, there were over 300 million tweets sent out about the election, and both candidates put in their fair share. One candidate consistently used a team to strategically lay out messaging principles and press release schedules, the other had his phone taken away by his campaign staff in fear of a twitter rant.

Analytics, engagement, hashtags, none of it matters now. But the world doesn't stop spinning, although if you look at Hillary Clinton's Twitter feed, you might think it did for her.

Post-Election Blackout

After losing an election, especially one of this nature, it's normal that a candidate would spend some time out of the public eye. For Clinton, it must be particularly devastating after multiple attempts at the oval office. Throughout the campaign, her profile was constantly with press releases, voting reminders, whatever material was needed. Her feed told a different story on the morning of Nov. 9, it was filled only with quotes from her concession speech.

They carry the tone of someone who is hurting, but also doing her best to console her anxious supporters, and have them open their minds to a Trump presidency. She even included a bible excerpt to try and comfort her followers. There were no tweets for several days.

"To all the little girls watching...never doubt that you are valuable and powerful & deserving of every chance & opportunity in the world."

She broke her silence only yesterday, Nov. 16, to promote a speech she's is giving at a non-profit. However, a group of her supporters are still making their voices heard.

I'm Still With Her?

Clinton's campaign centered around the slogan and hashtag "I'm With Her." Following her loss, her followers stayed active on Twitter by continuing to send support with #ImStillWithHer. The content within these tweets can range from simple shout-outs to Hillary for doing her best and wishing her luck, to footage of Trump protests and speech about revolution. A popular practice is pointing out the statistics and 'problems' with the Electoral College, and accompanying it with a Trump insult and #NotMyPresident.

All in all, it's over. The Trump presidency is imminent and Clinton's supporters can't just scoff him out of the White House. Social Media fueled the hatred in this election, and it's concerning to see that it's still happening. Hillary Clinton's Twitter feed is filled with quotes from her asking for unity and understanding in this tumultuous time, but it seems that her supporters still don't fully accept that notion.

The company used a combination of the biggest names in television from Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer to John King and Brooke Baldwin to orchestrate its most watched night in network history.

From 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. last Tuesday, CNN averaged an audience of 13.26 million compared to runner-up Fox News, which drew an average of 12.11 viewers in those three hours.

Election night, however, was far from being about the number of viewers CNN drew in. Trump's victory signified something many of the networks' pundits and own poll couldn't predict. And CNN wasn't alone.

The American people have CNN to thank for its successful coverage of election night. But they also have the network partly to blame for Trump's upset win over Hillary Clinton.

Give Credit Where Credit is Due

In terms of ratings and content, CNN trumped all. Anderson Cooper guided the conversation with the pundits breaking down the night as it happened, and John King gave the political equivalent of a masterful play-by-play that was both insightful and easy to understand.

Trial and error from past general elections has made CNN's tracking map a must-see for those who want to stay up to date on how states and even particular counties are voting.

"We probably did put on too many of the campaign rallies in the early
months unedited," Zucker said in a conversation at Harvard University in mid-October. "In hindsight we probably shouldn’t have
done that as much."

But he added that he had no regrets on how he directed CNN to cover the election, specifically how the network covered Trump.

I argue, however, CNN should have remorse for a few reasons including too much coverage in the first few months he began campaigning and not taking
Trump serious enough at times.

The third problem I'll discuss is the bias of CNN's anchors. Their bias was never said on air, but to me it never had to be.

The feeling that none of CNN's anchors truly believed Trump could win was evident with every new insult he directed at a particular minority group in America because it made it less believable he could win. How the anchors viewed Trump was also evident when they talked to his supporters on any given show.

Retrospect

It's hard for me to type this and not blame CNN's anchors for thinking he didn't have a chance because I didn't either.

The result that emerged from last week's unprecedented election has at least taught CNN and young journalists such as myself an important lesson — use your position and platform to cover politics, especially presidential candidates, with the seriousness it deserves no matter how entertaining, amusing or outlandish the person running may be.

As the "media," we are continuously losing the trust of the American people. A good way to start getting it back is by realizing our role as the final watch dog.

We are the 4th check in the great democratic system of checks and balances and fulfilling that role should be done each and every day, not just during election season.

---

Must See: Van Jones encapsulates the fear many Americans have now that Trump will be president.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Trevor Noah took Donald Trump to task after the election, roasting him for backpedaling on many of his major platforms so soon after being elected.

Well.

That happened.

After 17 months of laughing at him, the viewers of Trevor Noah'sDaily Show fell silent
last Wednesday morning, as Donald Trump was declared victorious over Hillary
Rodham Clinton, securing over 70 Electoral College votes more than the former
Secretary of State and thus being named the President-Elect of the United
States of America.

Wow.

Noah's prediction of what America might look like after four years of a Trump presidency involved allmajor news outlets being shut down andreplaced with "TNN."

Needless to say, Trevor Noah had spent the better part of a year
vigorously opposing Trump. Just a week before Election Day, Noah released an
out-of-studio package about what life might look like in 2020 as the potential
President Trump runs for re-election. Noah's vision of such a future is bleak
and hopeless, putting a very clear emphasis on what he thought would happen
should Trump have been elected.

Noah went live the night of Tuesday, November 8th while precincts
across the country were still reporting in. By the time his broadcast went live
late in the night, things weren't looking good for Hillary. Noah stayed
optimistic throughout the live show, but even he could realize that he might
wake up Wednesday morning to President Trump.

Which of course, he (and the rest of the country, whether they
liked it or not) did. Noah spent Wednesday night’s show wrapping up hiscoverage of the election. He repeated several times how shocked he was that
Trump was able to win, particularly disparaging the Electoral College system
and the fact that Clinton had at the time won 200,000 more votes than Trump (a
lead that has since grown to over one million) and yet still lost the election.

Noah was surprised, however, that Trump’s victory speech was as
gracious and positive as it was. Given the numerous incidents of negative
attacks Trump displayed throughout his campaign, Noah had imagined his victory
speech would have been much more arrogant and triumphant.

And though Trump’s upset was far and away the biggest story to
come out of election night, Noah took a moment to acknowledge the passage of
recreational marijuana usage in several states, and noted how strange it is for
voters to be choosing their next President and asking for weed to be legal at
the same time.

Several days into the post-Election 2016 era, Noah had some harsh words for Trump, saying how disappointed he’d be had he been a supporter of
his. Noah argues that Trump built his campaign on three major talking points:
“Build the Wall,” “Lock Her Up,” and “Drain the Swamp,” and that Trump has
already backpedaled on all three of those points. In a “60 Minutes” interview
shortly after the election, President-Elect Trump said he’d accept a “fence in
certain areas” instead of one large wall, that he doesn’t want to hurt the
Clintons because “they’re good people,” and balked when accused of stacking his
entire transition team with the same kinds of people he’d promised to remove
from the political process. While some of this may come as a relief to his
detractors, Noah thinks that his supporters must be livid that the man they
chose as their President has backtracked on the main reasons they voted for him
less than a week after the election.

Regardless of what happens to the country over the next four
years, I’ll be counting on Trevor Noah and his Daily Show staff to keep me appraised of everything I need to know,
and making me laugh a little along the way, even when things get dark. Unless,
of course, his prediction for 2020 has come true and he’s been taken off the
air long before then, in which case I’ll be doing my very best to stay tuned to
his intermittent illegal broadcasts.

Who We Are

Thisblog is created byE.W. Scripps School of Journalismstudents in a Media Election Coverge class. They are monitoring presidential election coverage on broadcast, cable, online and social media. The blog posts will turn the tables on the reporters, commentators and politicians, analyzing and reacting to what they're saying. Enjoy our weekly commentary! And take a look back at how students analyzed media coverage of the 2008 presidential race in our older posts.